Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill — 10 Nov 1997

Mr Peter Mandelson MP, Hartlepool voted with the majority (No).

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Since the abolition of the Greater London council 11 years ago, London has been the only western capital without any form of democratically elected citywide government.

For 11 years, the people of London have had to put up with an eccentric administrative patchwork made up of secretive Cabinet committees, ad hoc arrangements and a plague of quangos. No one was responsible, so no one was to blame. No one was ever to blame.

"Who governs London?", the people asked, "Who is in charge?"--and answer came there none. No one represented London. The Minister in the previous Government supposedly representing London actually represented a rural Suffolk constituency. The whole set-up was amateurish--and it showed.

London, with its customary inventiveness, did its best to compensate. Public, private and voluntary sectors came together in a variety of partnerships. They published strategies and launched initiatives, but there is a limit to what can be done by busy people with other responsibilities.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wanted to pick up his rather sneering reference to amateurishness and his implication that there is something wrong with local government in London. How does he square that with a recently published survey in which international business

I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill because it fails to provide for Londoners to be consulted on proposals for an Assembly and for a directly elected Mayor separately."

He did not quote The Guardian , which can hardly be accused of being a Conservative-leaning paper--although I suppose anyone who is against the Government is accused of being Conservative-leaning. The Guardian asked why, if the Government are so sure of their case, they cannot put it to the people. Why can they not argue the case for a directly elected assembly if it is as self-evident as they appear to believe?

It is right that the ALG should reflect those views. Happily, the majority on the ALG did not accept those views and, later tonight, the majority in this House will not accept those views.

We scarcely had a disastrous election result on 1 May.

Question put, That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 342.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 135 (+2 tell)084.6%
Lab341 (+2 tell) 0082.3%
LDem0 32071.1%
PC1 0025.0%
Total:342 167081.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive